Poll, R mount and 3ed party lenses

I've voted:

"are you staying with canon but are miffed there are no 3ed party lenses"

I went with Canon because of IQ for the buck with used third party EF offerings.  I'm sticking with Canon because of it's low light AF.  I'm not happy with the light weight prime offerings. The 35mm is probably o.k., but still expensive for what it is, and more important: it's not my focal length (that's not Canons fault of course, but beside this the 35mm is probably the only o.k. light weight RF prime imo). I think stm AF could be workable for 35mm, but for 50 and 85mm it's not fast enough for my use cases. I need small primes with fast AF and great IQ wide open. The 85mm delivers when it comes to IQ wide open, but the 50mm isn't good enough at portrait apertures for me. Of course contrast sliders can be used to mask a lot, and the same might be going on in lens corrections or even the jpg engine. However, contrast isn't detail. The stm is more a walk around scape lens. That's fine, but doesn't to anything for someone needing a fast focusing 50mm prime being also capable as a portrait lens. Now the 50mm f/1.2 is a great portrait lens, but it's still not a fast focusing option, and at the same time it's not suitable as a work around lens due to the weight. At f/5.6 the stm lens is also even a tad sharper by the way.

I would definitely prefer a 50mm being light weight enough for walk around purposes yet being sharp around f/1.8. And give it fast USM AF. IBIS would be nice, but it's not essential at this focal length. I think the Nikkor 50mm Z f/1.8 for Nikon Z mount perfectly shows what can be done with a lens weighting only 410 grams. I don't need it to weight less than that, while I would love 410 in stead of 950.

The 85mm is perfect, beside AF.  I don't have a problem so much with the max f/2.0. Bokeh isn't the best, but I can see this is a trade of giving benefits in return (good contrast in back lit  situations). For me the 0.5 times magnification is a bonus at this focal length, whereas for other focal lengths it's not a huge bonus due to the limiting working distance.

I think the 24mm isn't the best option either. A zoom needing a lot of corrections is justifyable, however, for a prime it's not a great design choice imo. It's a scape focal length, and also usable for architecture and such. You will need sharp corners so now and then at 24mm. With a classic non distorted design you can at least stop down to get your corners sharp. With a huge amount of distortion there will be always the limit of the corrections messing up sharpness there.  For street a bit faster AF would be nice, although at 24mm stm could be fast enough for most cases.  Size and weight and IS are very nice for video, but here is focus breathing messing it up to give us a great video lens too. Now there was a review stating this 24mm was as soft  as the RF cheap normal zooms. I don't believe it's that bad. If you want "just in case" improved 24mm in your bag next to a cheap zoom (or to go with primes only) it's a nice option, however, it's introduction price is a bit steep for a just in case lens. So this lens has some potential use cases making it a potential great option, but for every single potential use case there's also a draw back.

Now Canon has made a short zoom range zoom to get a larger max aperture: the 28-70mm f/2.0 L.  Personally I would love to see a short range zoom to allow for a smaller size in stead of a large aperture. 28-55 f/5.6 for instance, giving good sharpness wide open or even at f/7.1, the very borders and corners are allowed to be a tad softer, that's no problem for this lens. Just a walk around short range zoom where the range is traded for better IQ than say the 24-105mm stm provides, that would be great.

So.... longing for less heavy lenses without trading other aspects so much, that would be nice.   That said, I might have became addicted to the IQ of the fat primes anyway.